ORDER

Shukla, J. -- 1. The present intra-Court appeal is filed under section 2(1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchch Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth ko Appeal) Adhiniyam 2005 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Adhiniyam 2005’] challenging the order dated 6.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No. 1596/2018, whereby he has allowed an application preferred by the respondent Bank for codonoation of delay and also recorded the undertaking given on behalf of the present appellant to the effect that the amount so deposited by the respondent-Bank before the executing Court under the head of decretal amount, shall not be disbursed till the next date of hearing.

2. The learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present appeal on the ground that the writ appeal is not maintainable as the review petition has been filed against the order dated 9.8.2018 passed by the Single Bench in M.P. No. 1873/2017. In the said petition a challenge was made to the order dated 15.5.2017 passed by the first appellate Court thereby dismissing the application preferred by the petitioner for vacating an ex parte order. The said petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the present appellant was allowed and the impugned order dated 15.5.2017 was set aside and as a consequence whereof, the application filed by the present appellant for vacating of the interim order was allowed. The appellant was also permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the respondent-Bank subject to furnishing surety prior to withdrawal of the amount.

3. Thus, apparently the present review petition has arisen out of an order passed in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, wherein a challenge was made to the order passed by the first appellate Court in the appeal. The learned counsel for the respondent assiduously urged that by the impugned order the learned Single Bench has allowed the application for condonation of delay considering the grounds mentioned therein. The undertaking given by the learned counsel on behalf of the present appellant, was recorded by the Court and the same has been continued as per the statement made in that behalf. It is further submitted that the review petition is still pending adjudication before the learned Single Bench.

4. The appellant strenuously urged that the order impugned whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the application for condonation of delay in review petition shall be deemed to be an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submitted that since there is no specific provision in filing a review petition against an order passed in the writ petition, therefore, the said order shall be treated to be an order passed in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. To bolster his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment passed by the apex Court in Shivdeo Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 1963 SC 1909. In the case of Shivdeo Singh (supra). the said case, the apex Court has allowed a writ petition for cancellation of an order of allotment passed in favour of a person, who was not a party to the writ proceedings. Subsequently, he filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for impleading him as a party in the writ petition and for re-hearing the whole matter. The High Court allowed the writ petition and held that the second writ petition filed by the said person was maintainable and the High Court had not acted without jurisdiction in reviewing its previous order at the instance of the said person who was not a party to the previous writ proceedings. Further, there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In view of the afo